Thursday, July 5, 2012

Today at PP: I repeated the mantra that anyone who cares about the federal budget should know by now: there's no federal budget deficit problem; there's a health care costs problem. Also: why it's so difficult to solve.

At Plum Line, I update on the war on voting and why it matters. I'll repeat the point I made over there: there's a textbook version of gradual and one-way expansion of the franchise in US history that I just think is dead wrong. This stuff can, and does, go in both directions. Would it really surprise anyone if today's GOP starts pushing for a repeal of the 26th Amendment (18 year old vote)? Looking around...hmm, seems that Ann Coulter for one talked about it, but it doesn't seem to have been picked up yet by others.

Not receiving federal assistance? Why would that be a criteria? Because they'd vote for a run on the treasury?

Wow.

I mean, mind-bogglingly....wow.

I'm in full agreement. When people stop taking their child tax credits, mortgage deductions, social security checks, and military paychecks out of principle, then I'll support removing those on federal assistance from the voter rolls.

Child tax credits and mortgage deductions are not federal assistance, they are merely lower taxes.

However, I certainly agree with you that social security checks are federal assistance, and those in receipt should not be eligible to vote in federal elections (it should be up to each individual state to decide on state elections).

Paychecks are not federal assistance either, but I do agree with you that federal employees should not be eligible for the vote.

I do not suggest that anyone should stop taking their benefits out of principle. It should be entirely up to them whether they wish to continue receiving benefits. But they should not be able to continue receipt, and vote. They should have to choose.

Shouldn't everyone have a right to vote their own self-interest? No need for one to respect another who frankly does so with no sense of greater public spirit. Anon 6:14, what's your implied principle? Something on the order of: receiving a federal benefit (except if it's done through the tax code) is equivalent to a conflict of interest requiring recusal?

First anon: that's precisely my point. Just because we spend the money through the tax code instead of a check doesn't make it any less a government hand-out. My point is that if you restrict the franchise only to those who pay in and not to those who receive checks, well, you're REALLY gaming the system to favor the haves over the have-nots.

I remember the arguments when the voting age was changed by constitutional amendment in the 1960's. The most compelling argument was that if could be drafted as an 18-year-old and sent to Vietnam, you should damn well be able to vote. That clearly showed the injustice of not allowing 18-year-olds the vote. But I also support your argument--that it is an adult citizen's right. Bravo for that!

It didn't show the injustice of not giving 18-year-olds the vote, or anything like it. You may as well argue that 18-year-olds shouldn't have the vote because they can't buy alchohol. Two stupid policies don't cancel out to make a sensible one. If the government was drafting 5-year-olds, it wouldn't prove that 5-year-olds should be able to vote. No-one should be drafted, and voting should not be viewed as a right, but as a public trusteeship.

Anon 6:19,"voting should not be viewed as a right, but as a public trusteeship."

I do wonder whether we will over the next generation see a growing marginal group of conservatives revive arguments deriving from 18th-century, 19th-century, and classical notions of democracy and republicanism. I've even received weird circulating chain emails from my grandparents that decry the decline of democracy and empire based on analogies to ancient Rome and a narrative that the masses will ruin democracy by calling for too much assistance, etc., etc.